Subscribe by Email

Subscribe in a Reader

Disclaimer

Blog comments do not reflect the views or opinions of the Author or Ancel Glink. Some of the content may be considered attorney advertising material under the applicable rules of certain states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please read our full disclaimer

Pages

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

In
another case issued on June 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the
federal Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) prohibits attorneys from using
protected data from state drivers’ databases to solicit clients.Maracich v. Spears.

In this
case, plaintiffs’ attorneys had obtained data from the South Carolina DMV through
freedom of information requests in order to identify potential plaintiffs for a class action
lawsuit.The plaintiffs’ attorneys then
sent out a mass mailing to the drivers, inviting them to contact the firm to
discuss potential representation.The
defendants’ lawyers filed a lawsuit against the plaintiffs’ lawyers for
violating the DPPA, which prohibits the use of a driver’s information from a
state DMV without prior permission from the driver.The plaintiffs’ lawyers defended their
actions by citing the DPPA’s “litigation exception” which allows the use of driver data in
court actions, including any investigation in anticipation of litigation.

In a 5-4 opinion, the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ lawyers argument, holding
that client solicitation does not fall within the litigation exception.Although the Court acknowledged that the
litigation exception was very broad, it determined that Congress did not
intend the exception to include client solicitation. Instead, the litigation
exception was intended to apply to work done by an attorney in representing
clients rather than in soliciting business. The Court supported its decision by
referencing another DPPA exception that allows use of DMV information for
advertising and other solicitation, but only if the driver consents to
use.

Four
Justices dissented, arguing that the
litigation exception was broad enough to include the lawyers’ use in this case
- to sign up clients for a pending or impending lawsuit.

Some municipal lawyers have expressed concern that the Court's ruling in this case may foreshadow how it might decide Senne v. Palatine, which is scheduled for conference on June 20th. This case involves a decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals finding that a police department's practice of placing citations on cars violated drivers' privacy protections under the DPPA. We reported on that decision on the blog previously, and will will be watching that case closely.

In full disclosure, Ancel Glink filed an amicus brief in the Senne case on behalf of the Association of Governmental Risk Pools (AGRIP).